From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 09:44:53 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id B1D432AE; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:53 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Vsevolod Stakhov Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files Message-ID: <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> References: <201407122229.s6CMTN42057554@svn.freebsd.org> <53C322A7.2090705@marino.st> <20140714003112.GA54756@mouf.net> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: svn-ports-head , "Timur I. Bakeyev" , Steve Wills , svn-ports-all , marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:53 -0000 On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:14:55PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > Let me explain the situation with pkg. Pkg needs to find so called > ``upgrade chains'' that are used to upgrade packages. To find out > packages that are suitable for upgrade we use origins in pkg 1.2 and > name~origin in pkg 1.3. > > However, each package is identified by a special field called > `manifestdigest'. In pkg 1.2, this field is just sha256(manifest). > Unfortunately, this means that if *any* field of a package is changed a > version bump is required. By fields I mean files and directories as well > which leads thus to a policy where we need to bump a revision even if we > have meaningless changes in the files a package provides (that happens > after this particular change). > > With pkg 1.3 this behaviour has been changed to recognize the following > fields only: > > * name > * origin > * version > * arch > * maintainer > * www > * message > * comment > * options > > Hence, I think that with the release 1.3 of pkg we should define > revision bump policy to reflect this change. I do not find this design good enough. I don't use pkg, I like to build things. I'm happy with pkgng for keeping track of what I have installed, but still prefer to build stuff from ports the old way. Now perhaps my gear is not as fast as yours; it takes about two hours to build heavy ports like gcc47 or Boost on PowerPC 7447A (1250.35 MHz), and even on much faster Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) building e.g. Clang takes an hour or so. So while I like to build things from source code, I certainly do not like to *rebuild* them over and over again for gratuitous reasons. Tell me, why on earth shall i bump revision for a typo fix in COMMENT or pkg-message, www, maintainer change? Why do I have to waste time and CPU cycles for rebuilding my otherwise perfectly fine packages? There should be a saner way to figure out those upgrade chains. If even a trivial change requires revbump to allow pkg to work correctly, then it must be doing it wrong, sorry. ./danfe